French anger at US spying claims

The most senior ministers in the French government have all today denounced the United States government, in the wake of allegations that American security services had been collecting data on French telecommunications traffic.

The newspaper Le Monde described how the US National Security Agency had recorded data on text messages and calls between December 2012 and January of this year. According to information disclosed by Edward Snowden, a former employee of the US Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, the US services had paid particular attention to Wanadoo, a telecoms firm that is now part of Orange, and Alcatel-Lucent, a French telecoms infrastructure company.

The government condemnation was swift and widespread. Laurent Fabius, France’s foreign minister, summoned Charles Rivkin, the US ambassador to France, to the ministry. Fabius said: “This type of conduct between allies intruding on private life is totally unacceptable. We must be assured, very quickly, that this conduct is no longer continuing.”

Jean-Marc Ayrault, France’s prime minister, said that it was “unbelievable that an ally country such as the US can spy to this extent on private communications that have no strategic justification or national justification”. He said the US must provide “clear responses that justify the reasons why these practices took place and, in particular, create transparency so that they are brought to an end.”

Manuel Valls, the minister for the interior, described the revelations as “shocking” and called on the American authorities to provide “precise explanations” for such practices.

Pierre Moscovici, the finance minister, described the practices as “inadmissible” and said explanations were due.

The revelations came hours before the European Parliament’s committee on civil liberties was to vote on data protection rules that would tighten the existing EU data protection framework. Tomorrow, the European affairs ministers from the EU’s member states are to meet in Luxembourg, where their agenda will be dominated by preparations for the European Council in Brussels on Thursday and Friday. Prominent on the agenda for the EU’s leaders at the end of the week will be the digital economy and telecoms regulation.

The French government has been lobbying for the summit conclusions to include tough language on tightening EU data protection and cybersecurity laws. In a position paper circulated to other member states in September, the French government criticised PRISM, a US surveillance programme whose existence was revealed by Snowden. The draft conclusions for the summit, dated today (21 October) call only for “strong” rules on data protection and cyber security.

The revelations in France are likely to sour the atmosphere for talks between the EU and US on a possible free-trade agreement. A round of negotiations was supposed to be held last week but was delayed by the US federal administration’s shut-down, caused by a stalemate over the budget. Resumption of the talks is expected shortly.

The allegations in France are likely to embolden centre-left Liberals and Greens in the European Parliament who have been calling for the EU to suspend a range of existing transatlantic agreements in response to the allegations of spying and excessive surveillance.

The existing rules on data protection, which date back to 1995, allow for the possibility of data being exported outside the EU as long as the data protection regime to which they were exported met “safe harbour” data privacy principles. The US regime was recognised as a safe harbour in 2000. But some MEPs are now arguing that in the light of the Snowden revelations, the US no longer meets the criteria of a safe harbour.

The European Parliament’s civil-liberties committee is voting tonight on proposals to revise data protection rules in the EU that would tighten the 1995 rules. Some MEPs want to subject the transfer of Europeans’ personal data to non-EU countries – above all the US – to very strict conditions. MEPs are also looking to introduce more draconian penalties for non-compliance than at present, with companies that do not comply at risk of paying fines of up to 5% of their global turnover.